Something is growing but I'm not sure it's poverty or inequality

The Waikato Times reports :

"New Zealand's biggest growth industry isn't agriculture or manufacturing – it's poverty, a Waikato University professor says

Social scientist, Professor Darrin Hodgetts, said New Zealand was "growing poverty".

"It's our growth industry and it's growing at three times the OECD average," Prof Hodgetts said ahead of a public lecture in Hamilton tonight....

...New Zealand had gone from one of the most equitable societies – in terms of income distribution – to one of the worst.

"And the cracks are getting bigger."

Look at the following graphs from the OECD Factbook:




What these graphs show is that New Zealand's percentage point change in the Gini index (official measurement of income inequality) was greatest between the mid-1980s and mid 1990s. Between the mid 1990s and lates 2000s the percentage point change was negative.

Not according to the professor:

"Things like Working for Families have had an impact but they haven't stopped the growth and the OECD figures are pretty conservative," he said.

The OECD measures relative poverty. If the Gini index shrinks there is less relative poverty.

In respect of OECD poverty rates go here and look at the graph on page 4.

It shows that between the 1980s and late 2000s New Zealand's poverty rate grew at two and a half times the OECD average. But the highest rate of change was in Sweden at 3.7 times the OECD average. Other countries with higher rates of change than NZ were the Czech Republic, Austria, the Netherlands and Ireland.

Featuring in negative rates of change were Greece, Spain and France. And they are all in the doggy-do.

NZ's population poverty rates have been falling. This table shows the most commonly used poverty indicator - percentage living below the 60 percent threshold of median household income after housing costs:

	AHC ‘fixed line’ 60%
1998	-
2001	25
2004	22
2007	18
2009	15
2010	15

In a nutshell poverty/inequality grew after the mid eighties. It decreased over the 2000s but has yet to fall to mid-eighties levels.

But what is actually growing right now? The number of people clamouring about, and the level of noise being made about poverty and inequality.

Rajen Prasad: holier- than- thou hypocrite

Rajen Prasad, now a Labour MP but previously Chief Families Commissioner, is criticising the new commissoner for commenting on Sue Moroney's Paid Parental Leave bill:

Families Commissioner On A Slippery Slope

The Chief Families Commissioner unwisely entered into a political debate and should not now try to wiggle out of it, Labour’s Associate Social Development spokesperson and former Chief Commissioner Rajen Prasad says.

“Carl Davidson has taken it upon himself to publically comment on Sue Moroney’s paid parental leave proposal and the economics around it...

...“There is overwhelming consensus on the value of paid parent leave. The Commissioner needed to base his advice on the merits of the case and not on what he believes the country can afford. That is what Treasury is for.

“The Commissioner’s credibility has been damaged and he must seriously consider his position.

But he is no stranger to the game. Prasad used to enter the political debate when he was Chief Commissioner. From 2005:

Rajen Prasad once again shows his political colours

"Families Commission boss Rajen Prasad is clearly protecting his own job with his misguided outburst today attacking Don Brash," says National Party Families spokeswoman Judith Collins....

"It's nothing short of an outrage that the Chief Families Commissioner is defending the current DPB structure in such an overtly political manner.

"Hard working taxpayers have every right to expect those receiving a welfare cheque will perform their duties as responsible parents.

"Why shouldn't parents be held accountable if they knowingly allow their children to remain truant?

"Why shouldn't beneficiary parents be expected to present their children to the doctor and dentist for regular checks, like every other responsible parent?

"Dr Prasad should be making a more balance contribution to this discussion. Instead, he has chosen to play politics," says Ms Collins.

Speedy Nats on welfare reform process

April 10 Peseta Sam Lotu-liga advises submissions will close on April 13.

April 16 Peseta Sam Lotu-liga advises submissions closed, 82 received and 34 will be heard 19 and 20 April.

I think I like the pace this government works at. Regarding an earlier social security amendment bill, I had just submitted my comments when the phone rang and I was told to appear the following week.

This time I missed the boat. But mainly because I didn't prioritise, I support the reforms and it's the school holidays. But I will try to attend one of the hearing days as audience, if only to blog back on how it's running or provide some offsetting comment to the media. I imagine that 90-something percent of the submissions will be in opposition and presenters will be looking to garner press coverage.

The veto was just a temporary reprieve

John Key:

"We think when the Government's balance sheet is in order, that provides greater strength for families overall because it is not just paid parental leave we support; it's Working For Families, it's access to early childhood education and many other initiatives."

It is a waste of time pointing out how much Key once purported to loath WFF. It's on the record. Perhaps politicians fancy themselves as 'maturing' after a few terms. To me the behaviour smacks more of buckling under the weight of righteous redistributionists professing noble causes.

But then one wonders about Key's "we". Surely not all National MPs share Key's enthusiasm for vast social spending, which is what, in the final analysis, has driven European countries to the point of such turmoil?

Was I alone in thinking that National was going to get serious about reducing spending this term? Not just as a response to the recession but because it would benefit New Zealand in the long term?

How easily I forget my own past utterances. Labour/National late eighties/early nineties were aberrations. Now it would seem NZ has reverted to the familiar political pattern of Labour ramping up the social spending and National falling in behind. This it would seem is a political stalemate there is no escape from.

New painting

Vested interests and statistics

I wonder what has prompted this belated outburst from Hone Harawira?

Domestic Violence is Going Up, Not Down

“Domestic violence is going up, not down” says MANA Leader Hone Harawira.

The Minister of Police, Anne Tolley, stated last week that “...we [New Zealand] have safer communities and far fewer victims of crime”.

Statistics from the NZ Police include:
• In 2009 police callouts to domestic violence were 78,693. In 2011 that figure has risen to 86,710 - an increase of 9.25%.
• Despite the increase of callouts, between 2009 and 2011 there have been 12,678 less arrests. That is a decrease of 31.71% arrests.

“The picture being painted is obvious. While there is an increase in the number of reported incidences of domestic violence, the cops are not arresting the offenders of the crime”.

“Women’s Refuge is now saying that the threshold for an arrest on the grounds of domestic violence needs to be higher for the cops to lay charges. So your husband will only be arrested if he tries to kill you, but a black eye is ok. It is a deliberate trick to manipulate the stats so the government can look good”.

“If you need proof, NZ Police no longer specifically record family violence offences in their official statistics. We will be on the only country in the OECD not to report these figures! That will mean in future years the government will declare that domestic violence is coming down. Yet organisations like Women’s Refuge know that such statements are bullshit – much like what Tolley has had to say last week”.

The business of 'up or down' has pre-occupied me recently. A couple of weeks back the Families Commissioner had a heated interview with Michael Laws. He claimed DV is going down which makes the White Ribbon campaign a success (Laws claims the campaign is biased and a waste of time).

But Women's Refuge are dubious about government presentation of statistics. Their primary interest is to obtain funding for their operations. Worsening statistics are more likely to achieve this - especially from government.

The Police want to look like they are doing a good job and the opposition want to make the government look bad. I guess that's where Hone fits in. (His example of a "husband" beating the wife is a bit rich though. Crime surveys show that women in marriages experience the least amount of domestic violence.)

A strong indicator of DV is represented in sexual assaults and police say that the recent surge in recorded sexual assaults - 3.1% 2009/10 - was almost entirely driven by assaults within intimate partner relationships. This may also apply to the 2010/11 larger increase of 14.9 percent.

Then there is the old 'reports versus actual crime' trick. When it suits, the government says that reports are up and that's good. 'People are coming forward due to all our efforts' they say. Reports may be up but that doesn't necessarily equate to the actual level being up, they say.

Yet Women's Refuge maintains need for their services is growing. Even then some of that may be driven by economic need (homeless women) as opposed to more violence.

Where Hone is on safe ground is criticism of the way statistics are recorded. It is impossible to make year- on- year comparisons when methods vary and police re-categorisation of crime has confused the picture significantly. (Re-categorisation is going to pose a huge problem when the government changes benefit types.)

The best rule on hearing a statistic is, even before you attempt to weigh up its veracity independently, look at whose mouth it is coming out of.

Most people already take 6 months to a year when having a baby?

Here's an interesting opinion from the head of the EMA:

Employers and Manufacturers Association employment services manager David Lowe said most people took six to 12 months off when they had a baby.

Those who did come back at 14 weeks usually did so because of financial constraints and were often "unsettled".

"If you have a look at the returning parent and the child, everyone is more settled if they take a little bit longer off."

A longer period of paid parental leave would be better for those parents and employers would generally not mind, he said. However he acknowledged the Government faced financial constraints.

If he is right then there is no case for extending PPL to 6 months because most people already take that amount of time. Most people can afford to pay for it themselves. End of story.

Good on National

NZ Herald Poll

1100–1150 votes

National's veto on extending paid parental leave - right or wrong?

1. Right (62%)
2. Wrong (33%)
3. I'm not sure (5%)

Update on poll: At almost 16,000 votes 60 percent say 'right'.

There are times when I get called by the media I am sure because I am the only commentator taking a dissenting view to social spending (apart from the government). The left would like to paint people like me as complete heels for not agreeing that mothers should have ample time to bond with their babies. In fact that's not what I am saying at all. Of course babies should get the best start but that is for their parents to provide for.

So it lifts my spirits when I see that a good number of joe public also agree, or at least believe now is not the time.

Next welfare reforms

For those interested in the next lot of reforms planned by the government have a read of the Bills Digest here written in non-legalistic language that is not difficult to comprehend. The biggest changes come for young people who will be micro-managed if requiring state support. I am not a fan of paternalism (which opposers of the bill will argue it is) but when you think about the very word, paternalism, it refers to the authority of a male parent. As the state is assuming the role of the parent and provider to 16,17 and 18 year-olds paternalism can be justified. Personally I think it will deter a good number from even applying. They want the money but not with this number of strings attached. But it makes me want to fall about laughing when I hear the left protesting about 'paternalistic legislation' when they are constantly lobbying for the state to assume responsibilities that should rightly fall to the individual.

Paid Parental Leave

Media Release
Tuesday, April 10, 2012

EXTENDING PAID PARENTAL LEAVE SHOULD BE REJECTED

At a time when the government is struggling to get the country's borrowing under control New Zealand cannot afford to spend more on extending Paid Parental Leave (PPL).

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said today that Labour MP Sue Moroney's private member's bill to extend PPL from 14 weeks to 6 months should be rejected by National and its support parties.

"Since PPL was introduced in 2002 the uptake has exceeded predictions. Like any welfare benefit, once introduced, they become difficult to control. Spending on PPL increased 175 percent between 2003 and 2010 yet the number of babies born increased by only 14 percent. (In the past five years the figures have been respectively 60 percent and 7.9 percent.)"

"In economic defence of her bill, Moroney argues that it will create employment as 'employers engage staff to replace those on PPL.' On that basis it would be equally valid to claim the bill will reduce employment when employers shed staff as those on PPL return to the workforce. In reality PPL is a hiatus from the workforce paid for by the taxpayer. It is a cost to the economy."

"If this bill is passed it will cost a minimum of $300 million by 2014, double what it is now. However, it is likely to be significantly more based on experience to date."

Did a couple of interviews on the back of this with Larry Williams, NewstalkZB (crosses over these two links ) - and Andrew Urqhart at Radio Rhema. I don't know what the listenership is on Rhema but I always enjoy my interviews there, with more time to develop a thought, or talk more extensively around a point the interviewer is making.

Socialism illustrated

(Hat-tip Eternal Vigilance)

Housing and claustrophobia

I worked in Glasgow periodically in the 1980s so retain an interest. Headlines from The Scotsman arrive daily by e-mail. This story about a Russian refugee family that fell from a 15th floor is awful but it was the accompanying image that caught me.

Red Road flats are apparently notorious. A quick search describes them visually. Eight 31 storey blocks on the outskirts of Glasgow husing 4,000. The tallest social housing in Europe when built in 1971 according to one report. I was unaware of them.

When I lived in London I accompanied my not-well-to-do brother looking to buy a flat (which I would also inhabit). We looked at some awful life-sapping dives. Yes, even the private sector built revolting concrete blocks. Some that were comfortably habitable inside looked straight into the neighbour's windows and had virtually all natural light curbed as a consequence. The sense of claustrophia was crushing.


Not a 'complainer' by nature, shown into a miniscule hotel room in a Hong Kong (with a toddler in tow), with a window no less than 2 metres away from a neighbouring highrise block, but deep down the tens of levels, I discovered I could put my foot down with a result. We were moved to a room with an outlook. (Cactus will shake her head at my 'delicacy'.)






I suppose in their favour these Scottish blocks are at least well-spaced providing some daylight and view. My psyche craves physical space and light and a horizon. Personally I would rather be in flat with an unimpeded view than in a pokey terrace house with a garden the size of a postage stamp. But the flats are earmarked for demolition. What will replace them I wonder?

On reflection I don't know I am born (a colloquialism for Fred Dagg's "You don't know how lucky you are".)

Labour MP undermines Labour policy

Is this a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?

Labour's policy is to introduce one year's Paid Parental Leave (PPL). One of their MP's has just had a private member's bill drawn from the ballot to introduce 6 months PPL!

If Paid Parental Leave is such a great thing why not lobby for 2,3 ,4 or 5 years entitlement? Oh, of course, we already have that. It's the DPB. And a fine job its doing of reaping "social and economic" rewards.

In the final analysis PPL is just another scheme that forces one person to pay for another's choices. That's the principle we live with and its arbitrary application is what keeps far too many politicians, paid lobbyists, media and public relations people, unionists, etc non-productively employed.

Crime statistics

Recorded crime is down.

Here's a couple of sub-stats.

In absolute terms there were 20,289 fewer recorded crimes in 2011 than in 2010.

In Canterbury there were 11,579 fewer crimes - that's 57 percent of the total.

David Garrett says the drop in crime is down to better policing and three strikes. He may be right that these two factors are reducing crime. But Earthquakes would have to be right up there.

In Waitemata and Counties Manukau there were 1,614 fewer crimes but in Auckland there were 4,229 more.

So I fervently hope that a downward trend is being established but would be foolish to get overly excited.

Effect of the recession on the labour market

Statistics New Zealand released an article yesterday that looks at how the labour market fared during the rescession. It summarises:

The New Zealand labour market was affected in many ways:

• people worked fewer hours
• the number of jobs available fell
• unemployment rose
• more people went into study
• there were fewer, and smaller, wage rises
• labour market turnover slowed.

Each heading includes a graph. Here are a couple:

My comment: This shows the double whammy for the economy. The state has to find more money to support increased student numbers while receiving less tax revenue from the numbers employed. Latest data (first half of 2011) shows a further 3.5% increase on 2010.

The only good news is:

During the recession, New Zealand experienced a smaller rise in unemployment than a number of other OECD countries. It is possible to compare New Zealand’s unemployment rate with other countries using the seasonally adjusted harmonised unemployment rate published by the OECD. Over the recession, New Zealand’s unemployment rate rose 1.2 percentage points. During the same period, the unemployment rate rose 3.3 percentage points in the United States, 2.0 percentage points in the United Kingdom, and 1.2 percentage points in Australia.

And the conclusion:

The recession in 2008 and 2009 in New Zealand and the rest of the world continues to affect the New Zealand labour market. There have been falls in employment, falls in hours paid and worked, as well as rises in the number of people unemployed. People have responded by leaving the labour force. In some cases, they have decided to do more tertiary study.

These factors have affected companies to varying degrees, depending on firm size.

The impact of the recession on the New Zealand labour market will continue to be felt for a long time.

Welfare state meets Woman's day

I am only posting this out of mild amusement such has become the pervasiveness of the state in our lives. If you suspect you are in a dysfunctional relationship take one of Nanny's quizzes to either confirm or allay your fears. Welfare State meets Woman's Day.

Describing Maori to allay the fears of potential immigrants

I am off on a tangent again. Supposed to be researching another subject, I am distracted by matters Maori. This is from the 1990 New Zealand Yearbook:

The ‘native race’

The New Zealand Wars were hardly over when the Vogel period of immigration and public works began.

Many potential immigrants must still have remembered reading of the wars when they weighed up the possibilities of emigrating to New Zealand, and the 1875 Handbook was published largely to attract these immigrants to the new country. However, in allaying fears of warlike Maori, it took liberties which today may well be seen as patronising and based on ignorance. It informed readers that:

As a rule, Maoris are middle-sized and well-formed, the average height of the man being 5 ft. 6 in.; the bodies and arms being longer than those of the average Englishmen, but the leg bones being shorter, and the calves largely developed.^* The skin is of an olive-brown colour, and the hair generally black; the teeth are good, except among the tribes who live in the sulphurous regions about the Hot Lakes, near the centre of the North Island; but the eyes are bleared, possibly from the amount of smoke to which they are exposed in “whares,” or cabins, destitute of chimneys. The voice is pleasant, and, when warlike excitement has not roused him to frenzy, every gesture of the Maori is graceful. Nothing can be more dignified than the bearing of chiefs assembled at a “runanga,” or council, and this peculiar composure they preserve when they adopt European habits and custom, always appearing at ease, even in the midst of what would seem a most incongruous assembly. In bodily powers, the Englishman has the advantage. As a carrier of heavy burdens, the native is the superior; but in exercises of strength and endurance, the average Englishman surpasses the average Maori. As to the character of the natives, it must be remembered—if most opposite and contradictory qualities are ascribed to them—that they are in a transition state. Some of the chiefs are with the exception of colour and language, almost Europeans; others conform, when in towns, to the dress and the customs of white men, but resume native ways, and the blanket as the sole garment, as soon as they return to the “kainga,” or native village. The great majority have ideas partly European, partly Maori; while a small section, professing to adhere to old Maori ways, depart from them so far as to buy or to procure articles of European manufacture, whenever they can do so. They are excitable and superstitious, easily worked upon at times by any one who holds the key to their inclinations and who can influence them by appeals to their traditionary legends; while at other times they are obstinate and self willed, whether for good or for evil. As is usual with races that have not a written language, they possess wonderful memories; and when discussing any subject, they cite or refer to precedent after precedent. They are fond of such discussions; for many a Maori is a natural orator, with an easy flow of words, and a delight in allegories which are often highly poetical They are brave, yet are liable to groundless panics. They are by turns open-handed and most liberal, and shamelessly mean and stingy. They have no word or phrase equivalent to gratitude, yet they possess the quality. Grief is with them reduced to a ceremony, and tears are produced at will. In their persons they are slovenly or clean according to humour; and they are fond of finery, chiefly of the gaudiest kind. They are indolent or energetic by turns. During planting time, men women, and children labour energetically; but during the rest of the year they will work or idle as the mood takes them. When they do commence a piece of work, they go through with it well; and in roadmaking they exhibit a fair amount of engineering skill.

Strange question from an ex ACT MP

I know Deborah Coddington doesn't define herself as libertarian any more and this isn't a personal dig at her. But this morning she asks a question I have heard more than once from other sources, but wouldn't have expected from an ex ACT MP:

"...why is the taxpayer-funded ACC even expected to pay compensation to someone who, we now know, has already received a million-dollar payout from a private insurance company for her bicycle accident, the same accident for which she's seeking an ongoing benefit from ACC?"

ACC is partially tax-payer funded but anyone in employment or self-employed pays premiums, often very hefty ones. If Bronwyn Pullar paid premiums, and if her injury fit the bill, shouldn't she be entitled to an ACC pay-out?And if Bronwyn Pullar paid taxes shouldn't she be entitled to an ACC pay-out? The fact she took out private insurance as well shouldn't have any bearing (unless, of course, she was setting out to get injured which seems highly unlikely). But this is the lie that is ACC and social security in this country. You make compulsory contributions with no guarantee of cover. Our system is a sort of hybrid between insurance, social assistance and wealth redistribution to the poorest.

Either government schemes should make pay-outs linked directly to contributions or let people make their own provision (while maintaining a separate pool for non-contributors).

As it stands we get the morally repugnant but legally defensible situation of Ms Pullar getting two pay-outs and still wanting more.

Oswald Bastable bowing out

The birth of Oswald's blog preceded mine by a few months in 2005. And my acquaintance with 'Oswald' preceded that. Today he has announced he is stopping. Lost the energy for it he says.

Far be it from me to speculate, put two and two together and make five, but I will. Are libertarians losing heart? Or do we just reach a point where everything we think has been said, and then some.

Back in the early 2000s we were more energised, had two political hinge-points (ACT and Libz) the tension between which, of itself, kept the passions stirred.

What do we have now? I am mildly mollified by a National government making some welfare reforms but in general we have the Greens in ascendency, National and Labour big-government protagonists both, ACT down the toilet and Libertarianz, for all their efforts and genuine people, gaining no traction.

And age comes into it. Our mortality looms larger daily but the desire to make our lives matter does not diminish. Making something may be giving our growing children the time and environment that launches their own adventure. It may be no more than leaving behind children and grandchildren who remember us fondly. But I speak for myself. I am not trying to second guess Oswald in this respect.

Oswald won't have made his decision lightly. Blogs become an integral part of your existence. Sometimes a welcome outlet, sometimes a tedious obligation. Certainly a habit, even an addicton, though I am sure real addictions provide more excites than blogs. Perhaps when the obligation aspect starts to overwhelm the creative vent, it is time to pack up. Even then you think, will the cessation be followed by regret or relief?

Anyway dear Ossie Bastable I will miss you.

State house utopia - not

Reading a story about 11 Somalian refugees living in a 4 bedroom home in Christchurch one can have sympathy for their situation, past and present. And the racism displayed by potential private landlords is unfortunate but no laws can change it.

However, what caught my attention came only at the very end of the coverage:

Hayden said Warsame's family had turned down three houses in Christchurch because the family thought they were in the wrong suburb or too damp.

So they continue to live 11 in a 4 bedroom house by choice. I can understand the reasons why people would turn down certain houses or neighbourhoods. I can understand why people might choose to pool extra income by sharing one home. But what I don't get is why they then feel entitled to go the media (assuming that is how the story got out) about their 'plight'. Housing New Zealand has an obligation to find them accommodation and it would appear are doing their best.

If anything the story is an indictment on the state of Housing New Zealand stock and not uncommon deterioration of neighbourhoods they proliferate. And racists.

Hide vs Franks on Close Up tonight

Rodney Hide will be taking the affirmative for Sir Doug Graham losing his knighthood and Stephen Franks the negative.

One person a minute

Yesterday Paula Bennett told parliament:

"Last year 80,000 people went off benefits and into work. That is actually one person for every minute of every working day."

The number of working age people on benefits rose from 351,000 to 353,000 last year. Which means 82,000 must have gone onto benefits. That is actually one person for every minute of every working day.

"National's war on the poor"

Sue Bradford seems to pop up all over the show wearing different hats. The last one I saw her in was BAIS (Beneficiaries Advocacy and Information Service). Yesterday it was Auckland Action Against Poverty. Never short on hyperbole she describes the reforms that went to select committee yesterday as "shameful", "punitive", "paternalistic", "harassment" and "an important strand in National's war on the poor."

What is she describing?

- The expectation that beneficiary parents to be available for part-time work when their youngest turns five. Most mothers return to work before then.

- Paying young beneficiaries power and rent directly and limiting their benefit cash to an allowance.

- Providing enough childcare to allow young mothers to stay in education.

- Warning beneficiaries if they have another child while on welfare, and their existing child is at school, they will only get one year free from work expectations - the same as for non-beneficiary parents under parental leave.

Bringing beneficiaries into the real world, having the same expectations of them as everybody else, is a great thing. Sue Bradford could be reminded about the 'soft bigotry of low expectations'. That's where she seems to be at.

Welcome news

For a change, some welcome news from the world of politics.

Credit where it's due. Well done Labour MP Maryan Street.

This is a bill one I will be following and supporting, if it is drawn.

Encouraging all mothers to have more children

A lot of what pass for comments on The Standard are ignorant insults. Psycho Milt has also blogged about this.

But here's one that is at least civil if not misguided. By someone called Alexandra:

Mothers who have a second child  whose older child is fourteen will be forced to be available for FULL TIME  WORK when their baby is ONE YEAR OLD.

No we should not be discouraging mothers to have more than one child by punishing the child and treating the child as a second class citizen.  In fact we need more children in our society as we do not have enough workers to support the increasingly elderly population.  Mothers are bringing up the future workers who create the value from which profits and taxes are taken. If these children would  not find work  when they grew up; that  would be  the fault of the failing capitalist economy,  the rip offs of the bankers and corpoations; not the fault of the  mothers or their children . It would also be  the fault of decades of financial and social deprivation- ie poverty and ill health caused by inadequate incomes, poor housing and health care; and the kind of prejudice and discrimination favoured by people like  Lindsay.

I had commented in support of National's policy to discourage beneficiaries adding children to their benefit by exempting the caregiver from part-time work-testing for only one additional year. That part-time work, if she can find a job, could constitute as little as 12 hours. Alexandra is correct to point out that if her next youngest child is already 14 she would be full-time work-tested (30 hours). But only 1 percent of MSD clients who added a subsequent child had a youngest child aged 14+.

And the argument she uses for encouraging women to have more children - whether on a benefit or not - "we do not have enough workers to support the increasingly elderly population" - can be used for increasing the workforce participation of working-age females. Often mothers.

Would they could

Opting out of Social Security

Probably the sort of thing Roger Douglas promoted for so long.

Research described in the Spectator (hat-tip NCPA) finds that US citizens who opted out of social security for an 'alternate' plan are much better off when it comes to retirement.

According to the Spectator,

There is also a disability benefit that pays immediately upon injury. Social Security's comparable benefit comes with a six-month wait, and includes other restrictions. 

The NCPA comments,  

The plan avoids the pitfalls of pay-as-you-go systems by giving workers only what they pay in....The experience of the three counties' employees over the past 30 years speaks to the effectiveness and efficiency of the plans. While paying out substantially higher payments to retired workers, the plans do not face burdensome unfunded liabilities that haunt many states' legislatures.


Perhaps the left would prefer the lower pay-outs because they are more even under state social security (the lower income contributors are topped up from higher). Individuals at all levels however are better off under the alternate plan.

Welfare to work

Over on the Standard the UK is being used to cast doubt over the wisdom of contracting private service providers to get beneficiaries into work.

As I have pointed out to them, there are already over 150 private providers contracted to MSD for this very purpose. They often work with the hardest to place and, from what I have been told,  get good results. Of course, the best result would be if individuals got themselves to these agencies before they even needed a benefit. Then it would be the prospective employer and employee footing the bill.

Rodney Hide and Winston Peters together on Radio Live

Rodney Hide is co-hosting with Willie Jackson again today on Radio Live. From 2pm Winston Peters will join  them. Will be interesting. Rodney has no constraints on him now, apart of course, from  those imposed by the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Update:  That was very hard to listen to. Winston is the worst and most wicked weasel ever. Rodney took him to task on his parliamentary insinuations about Nick Smith, and Peters barefacedly denied them, maintaining that his reference to 'sex' in the quote, "a shabby little case that involved blackmail, sex and a minister with a conflict of interest" was a reference to the sexual abuse victims whose details were wrongly sent to Bronwyn Puller. He is a revolting person.

Green MP - naive or smart?

New Green MP Holly Walker is either naive or smart. I can't figure out which. Yesterday, in response to the latest poverty inquiry, she was calling for a "co-ordinated child poverty strategy". (My immediate irreverent thought was, there is one. It's called the DPB. It creates plenty of child poverty.)

A lack of ability to find agreed solutions lies at the very heart of politics - what she signed up for.  The Greens prescription for solving child poverty is not acceptable to a majority. Until they are in government (or a compelling position of power) what they bring to the table will be rejected. They can talk and they can try to influence but they don't hold the aces. Calling for a co-ordinated approach is typical moral high-ground baloney to force their policies into the mix.

Welfare is the major factor driving child poverty but the Greens are pro-welfare. They would have more of it. Most people have either realised or are beginning to suspect that this would only increase child poverty.

And it's ironic that at the end of her post she gives Business New Zealand's Phil O'Reilly a serve. What's he doing on the panel? So she doesn't really want inclusiveness after all.

(I criticised the line up as well  but in the context of criticising the entire pointless project.)

The archetypal gang family

The fraud is less interesting than the profile of this couple. Gang family, 12 children, on-again off-again relationship, Maori, between them living on  benefits for 53 years, drug and alcohol abuse. And are you willing to bet against some of these 12 children already having their own beneficiary broods? This scourge isn't going away any time soon.

The Smith sidehow

The Nick Smith sideshow is the epitome of everything that is wrong with contemporary politics.

It further degrades politics and politicians in the public mind.

It detracts from vastly more important work in both abstract and practical senses.

It turns politics into scandal and proves that too many Kiwis have attention spans that can only support that which can be salivated over.

It turns politics into sport and proves that too many Kiwis have attention spans that can only support that which turns tribal.

Attitude to welfare changing

"The margins of difference between the main parties is shrinking all the time and their attitude to welfare is one of them."

After Labour leader David Shearer's intimations that the party he leads will take a tougher line on welfare than his predecessors, this quote could easily be about New Zealand.

It is actually from the general secretary of Public and Commercial Services union in the Britain.

At last, support for the sanctity of social security is abating, and the proof of this in political parties sniffing the change.

Another pointless probe into poverty

Another pointless exercise to find out what we already know and squabble over the 'solutions'. Waste of time and money. Just announced by the Children's Commissioner:

 
Children’s Commissioner Dr Russell Wills has today announced the formation of an experts group to find solutions to child poverty. 

“In New Zealand one in five children are growing up in poverty. The evidence overwhelmingly shows these children are doing badly and will continue to do badly
throughout their lives.

“Which is why I’ve pulled together 13 of the best minds in the country - experts in fields such as health, social policy, business, law and education - to find solutions.

“It’s not going to be easy. The answers to child poverty are likely to be complex, plus we’re constrained by the current economic climate. But I’m confident this group will
come up with recommendations that will make a difference. 

“I’ve asked to them to find realistic, pragmatic and effective ways to combat child poverty – both short-term answers and longer-term solutions. The group will examine the best available local and international evidence and experience, and make recommendations that will make a tangible difference in New Zealand. 

“I’m looking for advice that is broader than income because the issues of poverty are more complex than that. The group is likely to explore improving opportunities and outcomes for disadvantaged children through evidence-based interventions in health, social services, education and community development. 

“And with Maori and Pacific children over-represented in the poverty statistics, I want to see the specific interests of these children addressed. 

“The group will provide a final report to me by the end of this year. A draft report will
be made publicly available prior to this – and we will be consulting with the community at this stage,” he said. 

Children and young people will also be included in this process.   The Commissioner will use the recommendations from the experts group to provide advice to the Government in time to inform the Ministerial Committee on Poverty. 

“The Ministerial Committee has the same goals – to find tangible gains in both the near future and longer-term. And they’re focussed on getting value for money in a tight economic climate. 

“The solutions I will be presenting will come from an independent and child-focussed perspective but also take into account the need to spend the tax dollar wisely,” he said. 

The Expert Advisory Group will be co-chaired by Professor Jonathan Boston from the
School of Government at Victoria University and Dr Tracey McIntosh from Auckland University. Their bios and those of the other members of the group are listed below. 

“We’ve selected each of these people because of their skill, knowledge and passion for what they do. I’m excited about what they will achieve as a group and confident their recommendations will contribute to better outcomes for children,” said the Commissioner. 

Ends. 

For more information or to request an interview with Dr Russell Wills, please contact
Anna Santos on 027 696 5101 or a.santos@occ.org.nz 
 

The "best" minds include overt leftists like,

Major Campbell Roberts who says the National government has "no moral authority" for its welfare reforms.

Phillipa Howden-Chapman, a public health campaigner who believes, "The most important issue yet to be accomplished in public health is showing that the ideas and policies we suggest can make a difference to reducing inequalities in the access to some of the good things of life – warm housing, adequate income, opportunities for on-going education and interesting, secure jobs."

Bob Stephens - "For a country that has a long history of legitimate pride in its welfare state, the position of New Zealand is disappointing and helps explain the paucity of recent child outcomes," he says. "Until there are  increases in the level of generosity to families with dependent children, adverse outcomes for children are like to bedevil the country for years to come."

Nikki Turner of the Child Poverty Action Group - say no more.

Salesman for the state

Although privacy is a right in a democratic society, it is certainly not an absolute right. Some might consider DNA profiling of the whole country as the first step towards a totalitarian state, but just perhaps, this concept, along with the Search and Surveillance Bill passing the final hurdle, could be the first steps towards a state that will not tolerate crime -a state that will do everything possible to protect the innocent.

So says Steve Baron writing in today's NZ Herald.

A "state that will not tolerate crime."

The same state that defines the crime.

Some people are just so ready to relinquish freedom.

The bastardisation of Nanny State

'Nanny State' describes the intervention of the state in people's private lives and property. But there is a growing tendency for Labour and the Greens to accuse National of  Nanny Statism. They did it over welfare reform, and here is another example from Annette King today complaining about central government attempting to rein in local government:

“This is Nanny state. It is central Government stepping very heavily on the toes of local communities..."

Balderdash. Local government increasingly embodies Nanny State with its suffocating property  rules and regulations, and now,  tasked with the power of general competence under Labour, sticking its nose into areas previously the domain of central government.

But we shouldn't be surprised that Labour conveniently misunderstands what Nanny State means. Sloppy definitions are vital to politicians and the pursuit or retention of power.

"Babysitting networks"?

Disparagingly, a Labour spokesperson says:

Just last week the Government suggested babysitting networks might be the solution to childcare for job-seeking solo parents.

I'd like to know who floated that idea and send them a bouquet.

I have long said that if people being paid by the state to look after just one child (the case with about half of those on the DPB) provided care for two more, then a whole lot more people who want to work could. In fact there would be no need for welfare as earned income was redistributed between working parents and carers.

This is how communities should operate through voluntary, constructive cooperation. When Labour pooh-poohs these sorts of common sense ideas they look like the usual state-is-best bunch of socialists they have always been.

 (The spokesperson was mixing two issues by the way. Care for babies and free ECE which kicks in at 3).

More privacy invasion on the way

Privacy concerns have been topical is the past week. There is another area where government are about to change legislation to allow more information sharing between departments. Purposeful sharing as opposed to inadvertent.

To implement their proposed Youth Pipeline (contract service providers to manage school leavers most likely to go on welfare) the Ministry of Social Development requires information about these youngsters from the Ministry of Education. You would think that schools are best positioned to identify those students fitting the profile. And it would be a simple exercise to ask for authorisation of the release of their personal details from their guardian or the student themselves. There may be some reluctance or outright refusal but if that is the case expecting compliance with a service provider is probably pie in the sky anyway. Explaining to a parent or guardian that in order for their child to get further help from the state - including a benefit - they need to register contact details, should provide the carrot.

 So it is dismaying to read what the Minister is recommending:

Again this propensity to treat everyone the same because of a minority problem rears its ugly head. I don't want the name and address and other personal details of my child to be given to MSD. Simple as that.


This is going along the same lines as other privacy invasions by the state relating to children that are completely unwarranted.

Also it means spending sorely needed revenue on unnecessary long-winded bureaucratic processes. 

FFS deal with the actual problem and leave the rest of us alone.

Porirua Mayor to eradicate child poverty

Good luck with that. No central government in the western world has achieved it. From today's Dominion Post:

"Porirua Mayor Nick Leggett has hit out at Government suggestions that councils should stick to core services such as sewage , roads and libraries. Porirua City Council's plan, which outlines spending for the next ten years includes a vision of a poverty-free city, and Mr Leggett insists it has a "moral obligation" to stamp out child poverty."

A "moral obligation" no less. You, the ratepayer, have a moral obligation to ensure that other people's children are free from poverty. It's not enough that central government imposes this fatuous claim on you, he wants to duplicate it. On the upside, when the imposition becomes so localised you find yourself having to share your wages with the large family next door the absurdity and outrageousness of the proposition becomes evident.


And what motivates Mr Leggett?

"The Inside Child Poverty: A Special Report documentary which screened on television last year, spurred Mr Leggett's vision for the council to step up."

Influenced by sensationalist propaganda which I wrote about here and here.

Porirua ratepayers will no doubt be delighted with this news.

More newly-named welfare benefits

16 and 17 year olds and 16 to 18 year old teen parents who are receiving government financial assistance.

From 30 July 2012, a new Youth Payment and a new Young Parent Payment will be introduced with youth-focused obligations.

To qualify young people will need to be in education or training and they will have to meet certain obligations such as undertaking budgeting courses and, if a parent, parenting courses. Some of their basic costs like rent and power will be paid directly to suppliers with a small in-hand allowance paid direct to the young person and any remainder of their payment placed on a payment card for groceries.

To enable this policy to work the Minister is asking for the private sector to help:  

Letter to providers about youth services 

Dear provider, 

Changes to the way we work with young people 

The Government has announced its intention to undertake major changes to the welfare system. One of the first areas of focus is how Work and Income will manage young people at risk of long term benefit dependency. Currently too many young people in New Zealand are not in school, training or work. In addition to this, we know more than half the young people who end up on a benefit before they’re 18 years old spend at least five of the next 10 years on welfare. These people require intensive support, attention and encouragement. We need to change the way we identify, support and manage these young people before they end up trapped in the cycle of welfare dependency – and we need your help to do it.

Well, I could point out what many libertarians have in the past, that government money corrupts the impetus and motivation of charitable endeavours. However, using tax to buy ' hand-up' assistance is still better than using it for 'hand-out' assistance.

Shearer hints at harder-line welfare policy

There's an ambiguity about the headline from the NZ Herald relating to David Shearer's breakfast speech.

Harder-line than previous or than National? And does this mean that Labour will be supporting the welfare reform legislation soon to pass through the House? Or will they call for tougher legislation? The Welfare Working Group had some recommendations rejected that Labour could pick up and promote.

Or is he simply indicating that Labour is dropping the ill-informed pre-election policy to extend the In Work Credit to beneficiary parents? Whatever this means, I'll tell you what I take from it.

Labour realises that the public are now behind welfare reform. They either have to support National and look for votes on another platform, or go further than National is currently prepared to.

Singapore's 'welfare state'

Recently I had the pleasure of spending the day with James Bartholomew when he visited NZ as part of a research tour in preparation for a follow up book to his The Welfare State We're In.
After NZ he was on his way back to Australia and then on to Singapore. This article from the Spectator describes what he found in Singapore.

Maxim makes no sense

A Maxim 'Real Issues' newsletter referring to welfare reform says:

Growth in welfare has become an increasingly critical issue in both countries over the last decade, particularly for the UK. While it's the largest area of spending for both countries, it takes up a third of New Zealand's GDP compared to almost half of the UK's. Since 2001, welfare spending has risen by four percent in New Zealand to $21.2 billion. It rose four times as fast in the UK, and now sits at 111 billion pounds (about NZ$213 billion).

If welfare in NZ was taking up a third of our GDP that would be about $56 billion. Goodness knows what half of the UK's GDP is.
Here is a graph from the London School of Economics.

It shows that not just welfare, but  education and health consume about 26 percent of GDP. In NZ the same areas of expenditure consume about 28 percent of GDP (I've used NZ$170 billion).

 Not sure what the Maxim writer is doing here. Perhaps intending to compare percentages of government spending but even then, the claim that in the UK welfare takes up half is quite wrong.

More on newborns added to a DPB

In 2010 4,800 newborns were added to a DPB

59 percent of the caregivers were Maori, 23 percent NZ European, 12 percent Pacific.

The highest rate of additions were in:

Whangarei
Rotorua
Whakatane
Kawerau
Wairoa
South Taranaki
Carteron

(Notice most of these are also areas associated with gang presence?)

The younger the mother appears in the system the higher the likelihood she will add further children. Those beginning aged 16-17 had a 45 percent possibility of adding further children.

Finally the following graph shows the rate of additional births between 1994 and 2010:

Shearer on National's DPB reforms

Gordon Campbell interviewing David Shearer. Interviewing? Actually, no it's more like cross-examining to drag out the desired response.  The following excerpt relates to the DPB reforms. Hopefully Shearer will at least revert to the Labour's position  pre-Goff/King's campaign promise. Perhaps other Labour MPs will line up behind candidate Josie Pagani who rejected the In Work Tax Credit extension to beneficiaries post election.

Well, lets take an example: welfare reform. Welfare reform is something that many of those middle class strugglers we’re talking about happen to support. Do you think that solo parents on the DPB should be made to work full time when their youngest child turns 14,- and part time when their youngest child is five?

I think you’ve really got to be careful about making things compulsory. There are many, many people out there by now who are – at the age that their children are now – who are saying ‘ I’ll go back to work again, for a lot of different reasons, and for a lot of economic reasons.” There are two issues here for me here – if you want someone to go back out to work again, there are at least three pre-conditions. One, they need to have the skills to be able to get work. Two, they need to have good childcare to be able to do it And three, there has to be the jobs. Now if you don’t talk about those three things, then there’s no point in talking about compulsory or optional or whatever. Those three things are essential pre-requisites. And what’s happening is that the government is talking about compulsion, of pushing people out while actually not providing the enabling part of it.

But the point is, the struggling middle class don’t want to wait for those pre-conditions to be met. They’re happy to have welfare reform now, and seem to have a striking lack of sympathy for people on the DPB. Do you oppose the DPB planks of the welfare reform process?

I don’t oppose the encouragement of getting people into work. I don’t think there’s a party in Parliament that doesn’t believe working isn’t better than being on some sort of welfare cheque, particularly for unemployed people. For DPBs its obviously slightly more difficult, in that child must come first. And for us, that’s the key issue. The other issue…is that the majority of women who are having children, who go back out to work,- and I know, because there are tons of them in my electorate here – who put their children into childcare, and are able to cope. But there is another group of people and or whatever reason – jobs, skills, adequate childcare – where they can’t do that. They don’t have that option, even if you wanted them to, or felt that was the best thing for them. So putting the child first means that – if you want to get women back into the work force – you do need those other things in place.

But in the real world in 2012, we’re going to have the government enacting a welfare policy whereby solo parents on the DPB will have to work full time once their youngest child is 14 – regardless of the state of the job market. There’s no quid pro quo I can see on the government’s reform agenda. So, will you oppose that measure?

If there are no jobs, if there is no training, if there’s no ability for somebody to get childcare then –

So that’s a yes, you will oppose it?

I would like to encourage to get people back to work whenever they…as soon as possible.

I’m trying to get past your preference, and get at what are you going to do when it hoves into view into Parliament. Are you going to vote against any measure of this sort, within that section of the welfare reform legislation?

We have to see what it looks like.

You know what it looks like. Bennett and Co. have made their intentions very clear.

I’ll say to you again : I believe people should be going back to work, or going to work – because some of them haven’t been to work – whenever that is possible for them to do that, and whenever it is in the best interests of their children. But I say again – if there is no ability to get good work, either through jobs, or through skills or through decent childcare then that’s not….

And finally, can I say that those things are of such a priority to you as a pre-condition that absent of them, you will vote against that part of the legislation ?

I want to look at the legislation before I tell you how I’m going to vote. I’m not going to be sitting here in the absence of a caucus discussion and telling you how I – or the Labour Party – are going to vote.

Fail for Campbell.

Child abuse - an ethnic or socio-economic problem?

David Farrar is criticising research claiming child abuse  isn't a cultural problem for Maori. He says,

High quality research would look at ethnic prevalence rates, while controlling other factors which might be an influence such as poverty, welfare status etc.  I’d be very interested to also see data on prevalence rates by welfare status, once income has been removed as a factor. In other words is there more child abuse in households where no adults work, than in households where at least one adult works – but has much the same level of income.

The data doesn't exist in NZ as far as I am aware. Children in poor families: does the source of family income change the picture? surveyed living standards but didn't touch on levels of abuse or neglect.

In 1996 researchers compared the CYF notification rate for the general population and welfare-reliant  homes and found a significantly higher rate for the latter. But the research didn't control for income.

The latest US National Incidence of Child Abuse and Neglect survey found:

The rate for children with no parent in the labor force (22.6 children per 1,000) is almost 3 times the rate for children an employed parent....

Children in families of low SES [socio-economic status] were at significantly greater risk of Harm Standard maltreatment overall. An estimated 22.5 children per 1,000 children in low–SES families experienced Harm Standard maltreatment, which is more than 5 times the rate of 4.4 per 1,000 children in families that were not of low SES.

Chances are there is considerable overlap.

But here's the kicker, and there is no reason why NZ should be any different,

... the incidence of Harm Standard physical abuse was significantly lower for children living with two married biological parents compared to children living in all other conditions. An estimated 1.9 per 1,000 children living with two married biological parents suffered Harm Standard physical abuse, compared to 5.9 or more per 1,000 children in other circumstances. In addition, children whose single parent had an unmarried, live–in partner were at significantly higher risk of Harm Standard physical abuse (19.5 children per 1,000)...

NZ statistics show that Maori are more likely to have  an unmarried, live–in partner. Which takes us back to the disproportion of child abuse and neglect amongst their children.


What does need pointing out perhaps is that the vast bulk of children - both Maori and Pakeha - are not abused or neglected.

Maharey back but no better

Ex Minister for Social Development, Steve Maharey, is back today in the DomPost claiming his welfare policies worked and there was no need for National to re-invent the wheel.
 

There is not the space here to list the policies developed to implement the framework, but it is worth noting that they were the result of a concerted effort to draw on the best of international and national thinking.

Did it work? Yes. Unemployment fell dramatically and the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit declined.

Unlike in all other OECD nations, the increase in the number of people claiming a benefit because of a disability or an illness began to slow.

Note the green band and below represent people who generally spend many more years on a benefit than those on the unemployment benefit. The vertical axis shows percentage of the working-age population. So under Labour inroads into dependence was not the big-tick  achieve Maharey claims.

Evaluation showed that the policies made a measurable difference. Treasury was so impressed when $300 million was returned to it in one year that it made the advances in social policy a feature in its annual report.

Despite this, when a change in government occurred, it was as if a new start had to be made. A welfare reform working party was established and it operated as if in a vacuum.

Years of experience were wasted. Now, we have a new policy framework which seems to be based on the idea that benefit numbers are rising because people do not want to work. History teaches us that this assumption is not well founded. There are those for whom work is anathema, but most people take work if they have the skills for the job, it pays a wage they can live on and details, such as having a safe place for their children to stay, are taken care of.
Sole parents are a good example. Although current policy portrays sole parents on a benefit as young and irresponsible, they are typically women in their early 30s who have left a relationship. They stay on the benefit for a few years at most and then get on with their lives.

How much better current policy would be if it had built on previous experience.

Maharey is still grinding the organ. We now have new research that presents rather a different picture. For example,
 

On average, sole parents receiving main benefits had more disadvantaged backgrounds than might have been expected:

·          just over half had spent at least 80% of the history period observed (the previous 10 years in most cases) supported by main benefits

·          a third appeared to have become parents in their teenage years.

This reflects the over-representation of sole parents with long stays on benefit among those in receipt at any point in time, and the longer than average stays on benefit for those who become parents as teenagers.

 

 "How much better current policy"  is now it is evidence-based.

29 percent of DPB population added babies to their benefit

Media Release

29 PERCENT OF DPB POPULATION ADDED BABIES TO THEIR BENEFIT

According to just-released Cabinet papers, at November 2011, 29 percent of single parents on the domestic purposes benefit had included additional newborn children in their benefit.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell said that the paper  describes how parents who have additional children are more likely to have started on the DPB with a newborn (rather than having exited a relationship with a child), and have no record of having been employed before, after or during spells on a benefit.

The paper also describes the higher incidence of Maori adding children to a benefit. It says that the on-benefit birth rate has increased between 1997 and 2010 from under 35  to 50 per 1,000 women receiving the DPB .

Mitchell says these are the circumstances that have prompted the government to introduce policy to reverse this trend.

"It is well-documented that children who spend many years in workless homes experience poorer social, health and educational outcomes. There can be no justification for adding children to a benefit received  on the basis that the mother is already unable to raise her children independently."

Where are the jobs?

Last week I did a guest stint on the Radio New Zealand Jim Mora panel with Findlay McDonald and Gary McCormick. They were both objecting to the DPB reforms on the basis of, where are the jobs? I made comments along the following lines (without the pictures!)

When the demographic change New Zealand is facing is taken into account, it is clear that labour force is going to shrink in relation to the non-labour force. 

The graph below shows that the ratio of the combined 0-14 and 65+ populations is going to grow from around 0.5/1 today to 0.7/1 over the next twenty years. The demand for goods and services continues from the non-working population thus increasing demand on the working-age population. Hence it is so important for the government to set in place the legislation that requires beneficiaries to work when jobs are available.

Source: Facing Fiscal Futures
(http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/speeches/fiscalfutures)

Although it has grown, New Zealand still has one of the lowest rates of single parent employment in the OECD. This is, at least in part, a reflection of New Zealand’s historically
open-ended and relatively generous DPB.

Sole parent employment rates across the OECD, around 2007

Source: OECD family database (www.oecd.org/els/social/family/database)

So there is ample evidence jobs will be there, particularly in the care and health sectors, and ample economic imperative for more sole mothers to participate in the workforce.

However, to my mind, an even more important aspect of increasing their participation is the positive benefit for their children. Breaking the inter-generational cycle of welfare dependence won’t happen until children live with at least one working parent who is building their own expectations of a similar life.

Welfare reforms in children's interest

The New Zealand Herald  today published my response to a column by Susan St John, spokesperson for the Child Poverty Action Group.

Why Key won't budge on Super

On Friday John Key was on Radio Live with co-hosts Rodney Hide and Willie Jackson. Jackson was predictably getting into Key about the welfare reform, especially the requirement for women who have an additional child on the benefit to be available for part-time work, but Key was fending off the objections effortlessly and convincingly.

I rang in to say that I supported the reform but to ask, given most countries are raising the eligibility age for pensions, that life expectancies are moving out, that people are staying healthy for longer, why did he commit to keeping the Super eligibility age at 65 and does he regret it?

You can hear the answer here if you select Friday and 12.30pm (towards the end of the half hour slot). But listen to the whole hour because Rodney talking with the PM is worth listening to.

Essentially in 2008 National were aware that Labour were planning a widespread campaign of misinformation saying Key was going to raise the Super age and he wanted to put that to bed. (Ironic when you remember that raising the age was Labour's best policy in 2011).

Key also said that Treasury advised him that there were bigger problems to tackle than Super - rising health costs for instance. Super wasn't that big an issue apparently.

Rodney observed that the Retirement Commissioner thinks it is however and pushed him on that a bit. I get cut off so missed the exchange.

So really we are stuck with around $1.5 - 2 billion worth of unnecessary spending because of politics. I believe voters are prepared to accept a staged raising of the age (similar to what is occurring in the US) and refusing to budge is going to be a problem for Key in 2014. What should National do?